A suit cannot be filed with an oblique motive and is an abuse of process of court.

1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the interim order of the lower Court granting interim injunction restraining the petitioner herein from continuing in the service of the respondent.

.2. The facts necessary for proper disposal of the revision could be summarised thus:

.Respondent herein joined the petitioner-company limited on 21. 198 1/which is a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, as Deputy Personnel Manager stating his date of birth as 2. 1940 and he was promoted thereafter. As per rules governing the company, he has to retire on 28-02-1998, i,e. at the month end of the year when he attains the age of 58 years. A fare-well party was conducted and the respondent also participated and received gifts and mementos. Even before his retirement, he filed a suit on 24. 1997 as O.S.No.289 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam, seeking a declaration that his date of birth is 9. 1940. In that suit, he did not file any application for injunction. Thereafter, he filed a petition in Tr.O.P.No.6 of 1998 before the District Court, Udhagamandalam, to transfer the suit pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam to the file of Sub-Court, Udhagamandalam. The transfer petition was dismissed on 22. 1998. Without disclosing the dismissal of the transfer petition, another suit was filed on 22. 1998 seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from superannuating him, till the disposal of O.S.No.289 of 1997 or till 38. 1998. When the plaint was presented on 22. 1998 there were some defects and the same was returned on the same and represented on 22. 1998 and numbered as O.S.No.37 of 1998 and I.A.No.296 of 1998 was also filed along with it to restrain the petitioner herein from superannuating the respondent. An ad-interim injunction was granted.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he filed a counter, the lower Court was adjourning the case from time to time. Even when the matter was heard for some time, the lower Court has not passed any order and the settled law is being violated.

4. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that already a suit has been filed as O.S.No.289 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam to declare the date of birth as 9. 1940 and the present relief in this suit O.S.No37 of 1998 is only a consequential declaration and so, there was no necessity to file a separate suit when the earlier suit itself is pending. The lower Court has not considered any of these facts and simply granted interim order and that too, extending the order, inspite of the objections raised by the petitioner herein.

.5. At the time of admission of this revision, I ordered notice of motion on 20.4.1998 and also granted interim order suspending /injunction. Respondent was served and he has filed his counter affidavit.

6. The facts stated above shows that the respondent herein has filed O.S.No.37 of 1998 only to harass the petitioner and is purely an abuse of process of Court. It is better to take into consideration the relief sought for in the plaints in both the suits. In O.S.No.289 of 1997 the relief sought for reads thus:

.(a) Declaring the plaintiff’s date of birth as 01.09.1940.

.(b) Consequently directing the defendant to alter the date of birth of the plaintiff in the service records under the custody of the defendant as 9. 1940.

.(c) Such other and further relief as the court may deem fit under the circumstances of this case."

In the later suit in O.S.No.37 of 1998 the relief sought for is as follows:

.(a) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants company from superannuating the plaintiff and discharging the plaintiff from the defendants company till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.289 of 1997 pending before the District Munsif Court, Ootacamund or till 38. 1998;

.(b) Cost of the suit; and

.(c) Such other and further relief